DBAHC: Prevent Novgorodian Rus'

Well, Tver and Rostov come off as the next best choices to me. However, we should also consider the more southern Rus' principalities like Polotsk or Kiev, their strategic position along the Dnieper can help a lot, and there's nothing that says that the unifier of Rus' has to come from the north...

OOC:
But please refrain from using a certain baltic pagan tribe escaping the Crusaders wrath, conquering most of Rus', forming a medieval superpower by installing their monarch in Poland and later spreading their dynasty further west. This TL belongs in ASB.
y'all trigger me so.
 
The Serbs pulled off some incredible military and diplomatic coups to rise to glory (if only they could achieve some of that competence today, amirite)

And yeah, Konstantin II wasn't called "the Imbecile" for nothing! His incompetence in the Banatine War was astounding, and the "loony Lazarevic" memes we have here started from jokes about him personally! I'm almost glad the Serbs had the Century of Chaos they did starting with his rule; it was horrific, but comical in hindsight.

That's the problem with Serbia today - every leader they have sees themselves as a new Dušan, tries to act accordingly, and then ends up more like Konstantin. In all honesty, it's a minor miracle that there was even a Serbia left after the Century of Chaos; if it wasn't for Petar Valov's victory at Vranje, they'd have been completely dismembered. And you're right - as terrible as the wars were, there is a certain bleak humour to the sheer comedy of errors that Konstantin and his successors (all twelve of them, each defeated in progressively more humiliating ways) orchestrated through trying to hold their possessions.

Supposedly the idea was that it was the powers behind the throne that kept the nation going, like with the Merovingians or the Mamluk mithaq system that appeared after their civil wars. However much the Mamluks gained stability from appointing a figurehead, they certainly didn't fix all their internal issues to be able to go around conquering all their neighbors! The Ottoman system is unrealistically stable and strong.

Something that only works if you sit tight and keep reforming - the Ottomans were pretty much the exact opposite, what with the lack of any meaningful changes and the invasion of everywhere that the author could see on the same atlas page as Anatolia...

Oh, Epirus, the perpetual thorn in the side of the Serbs! All the "remove ćevapi**" types idealize the Epirotes and their supposed great struggle against the evil Slavic conquerors. The Serbs were much more tolerant than Rhoman or Wallachian patriots would have you think.

Try telling that to the government of the Republic of Epirus and Illyria today. They may as well burn Dušan and Petar Valov in effigy at every state ceremony...As for the Rhomans and Wallachians, they seem perfectly happy to overlook their own actions in the Century of Chaos, during which they came fairly close to overrunning Epirus and using its treasury to pay for the fortifications at Tarnovo and Salonike. Apparently, it's only oppression if the invaders are Slavs...

Well, Tver and Rostov come off as the next best choices to me. However, we should also consider the more southern Rus' principalities like Polotsk or Kiev, their strategic position along the Dnieper can help a lot, and there's nothing that says that the unifier of Rus' has to come from the north...

Kiev is a good idea, and would fit historically. Wouldn't the Crimea be a bit of a problem, though? After all, it's difficult to unite somewhere by force if you have to keep looking behind you every five minutes for invaders...
 
That's the problem with Serbia today - every leader they have sees themselves as a new Dušan, tries to act accordingly, and then ends up more like Konstantin. In all honesty, it's a minor miracle that there was even a Serbia left after the Century of Chaos; if it wasn't for Petar Valov's victory at Vranje, they'd have been completely dismembered. And you're right - as terrible as the wars were, there is a certain bleak humour to the sheer comedy of errors that Konstantin and his successors (all twelve of them, each defeated in progressively more humiliating ways) orchestrated through trying to hold their possessions.

Serbia dreams of being an eagle but awakens as a bustard. Isn't that a Rhoman proverb? And Valov was probably the only competent military man in Serbia in the 1600s--not that that blockhead Vasily IV could see it. I've always thought of their relationship as Belisarius and Justinian, with all of the conflicts they had; I don't believe the story Vasily had him assassinated, though.


Something that only works if you sit tight and keep reforming - the Ottomans were pretty much the exact opposite, what with the lack of any meaningful changes and the invasion of everywhere that the author could see on the same atlas page as Anatolia...

Yeah, what was up with the lack of revolutions? Russia, the Ottomans, the Habsburgs--they all stayed so autocratic with no problems for centuries! Looking at our history that just seems so improbable.

Try telling that to the government of the Republic of Epirus and Illyria today. They may as well burn Dušan and Petar Valov in effigy at every state ceremony...As for the Rhomans and Wallachians, they seem perfectly happy to overlook their own actions in the Century of Chaos, during which they came fairly close to overrunning Epirus and using its treasury to pay for the fortifications at Tarnovo and Salonike. Apparently, it's only oppression if the invaders are Slavs...

Epirus and Illyria is a backwards little oligarchy under the thumb of the Bua family. Their monopolies on industry there are ridiculous, and their hawkish outlook is the main stumbling block to goodwill in the Haemics. Well, that and the Turkish insurgency in western Anatolia; the Rhomans play up their own overbearing nationalism to conceal their Turkish problems. It's why they still claim Epirus and downplay their nasty actions during the Century IMO. Haven't the Wallachians been more equitable since their coup?
 
Serbia dreams of being an eagle but awakens as a bustard. Isn't that a Rhoman proverb? And Valov was probably the only competent military man in Serbia in the 1600s--not that that blockhead Vasily IV could see it. I've always thought of their relationship as Belisarius and Justinian, with all of the conflicts they had; I don't believe the story Vasily had him assassinated, though.

I like it - pretty accurate, to be honest; Serbia was still clinging to the belief that it counted as a Great Power as late as 1900, despite the objections of actual powers and the lack of any supporting evidence whatsoever. As for Vasily, I have my doubts that he ordered the assassination of Valov anyway - not because he didn't have a reason to (he was convinced that Valov wanted to overthrow him, which is another fairly plausible theory, and I don't think anyone would have minded too much at that stage...), but because the assassination succeeded, unlike anything else Vasily did in his mercifully short reign.

Yeah, what was up with the lack of revolutions? Russia, the Ottomans, the Habsburgs--they all stayed so autocratic with no problems for centuries! Looking at our history that just seems so improbable.

It's bizarre - the author didn't seem to realise that anyone could be dissatisfied with a government as long as it was ostentatious enough. There weren't any social changes until at least the 1700s - not that I really got that far; I stopped reading after the 'Russo-Turkish-War' in the 1730s, when the magic Ottomans defeat Russia and Austria simultaneously, erasing the Austrian gains of the last hundred years or so, whilst also dealing with problems in Persia at the same time. Not really sure what happens in the timeline after that, but to be honest the author seemed to have given up on it as well.

Epirus and Illyria is a backwards little oligarchy under the thumb of the Bua family. Their monopolies on industry there are ridiculous, and their hawkish outlook is the main stumbling block to goodwill in the Haemics. Well, that and the Turkish insurgency in western Anatolia; the Rhomans play up their own overbearing nationalism to conceal their Turkish problems. It's why they still claim Epirus and downplay their nasty actions during the Century IMO. Haven't the Wallachians been more equitable since their coup?

A backwards little oligarchy, yes - but one with a sizeable enough army to make everyone pay attention. They almost derailed the balance of power in the region five years ago just because Serbia signed a commercial treaty with Herceg, and this apparently offended them personally. The Rhomans, meanwhile, seem to think that if they keep aggravating Serbia, then they'll eventually get paid money to go away (or to 'compensate the people of Rhomania for the cruel oppression of the Serbs' - a bit of a desperate money-grab, and one that the Serbs have been laughing about for the last few years) - money that they can spend on tanks in Angora and Smyrna. As for the Wallachians, they've been a bit more manageable since the Ionescu regime was toppled at the governmental level - but local culture is still pretty anti-Serbian (and not just because of the Century - Serbia's invasion of the Banat in 1820 is still being complained about, and of course the whole Drobeta affair from a few decades ago is a common topic for populists). I went to Bucuresti on business recently, and some protestors had hung a sign saying 'Beatify Lajos' - after that Hungarian Prince who burnt down Beograd - off the side of one of the government buildings.
 
I like it - pretty accurate, to be honest; Serbia was still clinging to the belief that it counted as a Great Power as late as 1900, despite the objections of actual powers and the lack of any supporting evidence whatsoever. As for Vasily, I have my doubts that he ordered the assassination of Valov anyway - not because he didn't have a reason to (he was convinced that Valov wanted to overthrow him, which is another fairly plausible theory, and I don't think anyone would have minded too much at that stage...), but because the assassination succeeded, unlike anything else Vasily did in his mercifully short reign.

Heh, the Bulgarian Principality was the worst example of Serbia thinking it was a great power--what other nation would deny that a region had declared independence and pretend they still had control*? Yeah, Vasily was incredibly unpopular; Valov could have easily seized power and may have intended to do so. The conspiracy to kill Valov was well-funded and planned, which makes me agree with the Serbs of the time and say the Epirotes did it.


It's bizarre - the author didn't seem to realise that anyone could be dissatisfied with a government as long as it was ostentatious enough. There weren't any social changes until at least the 1700s - not that I really got that far; I stopped reading after the 'Russo-Turkish-War' in the 1730s, when the magic Ottomans defeat Russia and Austria simultaneously, erasing the Austrian gains of the last hundred years or so, whilst also dealing with problems in Persia at the same time. Not really sure what happens in the timeline after that, but to be honest the author seemed to have given up on it as well.

Decadence leads to untenable government, it's as simple as that. Throughout history whenever a government becomes encumbered by its own bureaucracy the people will rise to restore its integrity**. From the Arab caliphates to the Austrian monarchy it is a proven fact that ostentatious, unwieldy governments will collapse, which is why the autocracy-wank of the TL bothers me so much. /political soapbox

A backwards little oligarchy, yes - but one with a sizeable enough army to make everyone pay attention. They almost derailed the balance of power in the region five years ago just because Serbia signed a commercial treaty with Herceg, and this apparently offended them personally. The Rhomans, meanwhile, seem to think that if they keep aggravating Serbia, then they'll eventually get paid money to go away (or to 'compensate the people of Rhomania for the cruel oppression of the Serbs' - a bit of a desperate money-grab, and one that the Serbs have been laughing about for the last few years) - money that they can spend on tanks in Angora and Smyrna. As for the Wallachians, they've been a bit more manageable since the Ionescu regime was toppled at the governmental level - but local culture is still pretty anti-Serbian (and not just because of the Century - Serbia's invasion of the Banat in 1820 is still being complained about, and of course the whole Drobeta affair from a few decades ago is a common topic for populists). I went to Bucuresti on business recently, and some protestors had hung a sign saying 'Beatify Lajos' - after that Hungarian Prince who burnt down Beograd - off the side of one of the government buildings.

I forget just how much everyone in the Haemics hate each other--I don't know if you could write a plausible TL where everyone there gets along!

Herceg seems like the nicest nation of the bunch, but I'm sure they had some horrible atrocity they committed 600 years ago just like everyone else. Epirus just gets offended by anything that implies Serbia is succeeding; they wish they still had the Serbs at their feet like they did in 1822 (regardless of the fact that the Hungarians did the heavy lifting in that war).

Rhomania...I mean, their Greco-Roman cultural heritage is impressive, but they're so focused on the past they can't cope with present problems. Their vaunted Senate can't even handle a few thousand Turkish nomads with app tabs***.

It's a shame about the populism in Wallachia; those movements always support the most passionate but least intelligent people from what I've seen. I would've thought considering the excellent peace they won they would've ignored 1820 more--but if they're still mad about that it logically follows they'd be furious about the loss of Drobeta. And they put up signs supporting the Brute of Buda? Really?? His destruction of Beograd was horrific by all accounts, and his campaign of attrition was only outmatched by Carlos the Terrible in that era.

The contrast between the backwards Haemics and progressive North even extends to their worldviews, apparently--nations like Poland and Britain look forward to technological innovation while all these countries fight 200-year-old wars!

*OOC: Echoes of Kosovo, anyone?

**Alternate political philosophy derived from medieval Arabic concepts of decadence and the cyclical rise and fall of nations.

***machine guns: from Latin apparatus and Turkish tabanca
 
Hm... I wonder if in a world where Tejjy actually took out the Russians, there would be a farther push to have a unified Christian attack on "heathens." Perhaps, they could even try to get a crusade against Muslim Spain going, and thus the squabbling Andalusian states never were able to unify themselves under the Uzayrid Sultanate and become the geopolitical wrecking ball they were for the longest time.

And perhaps Rhome could unify Russia? I know that they had a lot of problems in this time period, but if you can butterfly away the Fourth Crusade, you could have a revived Rhoman Empire head north into other Orthodox lands?
 
Hm... I wonder if in a world where Tejjy actually took out the Russians, there would be a farther push to have a unified Christian attack on "heathens." Perhaps, they could even try to get a crusade against Muslim Spain going, and thus the squabbling Andalusian states never were able to unify themselves under the Uzayrid Sultanate and become the geopolitical wrecking ball they were for the longest time.

You mean they would've hit Andalusia instead of trying to keep Jerusalem propped up? Maybe, but it seems like the Crusader spirit was dying down in the 13th century. If they had attacked Andalusia, that would've had major effects on the Uzayrids--no chance of them pressing their claim in the Moroccan civil war and therefore no Uzayrid Morocco. And wrecking ball, what an appropriate term--they smashed the Genoans to pieces when they took Sardinia!

And perhaps Rhome could unify Russia? I know that they had a lot of problems in this time period, but if you can butterfly away the Fourth Crusade, you could have a revived Rhoman Empire head north into other Orthodox lands?

The Rhomans had significant problems that went all the way back to Manzikert; I'm not sure how much longer they would have been a major player even without the Fourth Crusade. The idea of a super-Orthodox Empire is interesting though, a counterpart to the historical ambitions of the pan-Rejectionists?
 
Heh, the Bulgarian Principality was the worst example of Serbia thinking it was a great power--what other nation would deny that a region had declared independence and pretend they still had control*? Yeah, Vasily was incredibly unpopular; Valov could have easily seized power and may have intended to do so. The conspiracy to kill Valov was well-funded and planned, which makes me agree with the Serbs of the time and say the Epirotes did it.

Apparently, for quite some time afterwards, they still had the Minister for Bulgaria as a Cabinet position, and pretty much threatened to boycott anywhere that recognised Bulgarian independence. A truly impressive display of wilfully disregarding reality in favour of what they sort of preferred. It would have been quite comical if it wasn't for the terrorist groups operating in Bulgaria and Macedonia alike... As for Valov, the Epirotes were by far the most obvious culprit - they had a pretty clear motive, since he was on the verge of taking Ioannina, and the resources to throw at it. They also probably had good reason to fear a Valov-run Serbia, which would be a lot more of a threat than Vasily's utter shambles.

Decadence leads to untenable government, it's as simple as that. Throughout history whenever a government becomes encumbered by its own bureaucracy the people will rise to restore its integrity**. From the Arab caliphates to the Austrian monarchy it is a proven fact that ostentatious, unwieldy governments will collapse, which is why the autocracy-wank of the TL bothers me so much. /political soapbox

Very true - the example of France in the 1800s is perhaps the clearest indication of this. There's a very fine line states have to tread between decentralisation and bureaucracy - the 'Golden Mean' - and when a state deviates from this, as happened in 1827, everything slides into anarchy. In a way, states are self-regulating: too much decentralisation creates a niche for a strong leader, but a decadent and overcentralised state causes uprisings and eventually a restoration of what Nahi called 'the bare bones of the state' under new leadership.

I forget just how much everyone in the Haemics hate each other--I don't know if you could write a plausible TL where everyone there gets along!

Herceg seems like the nicest nation of the bunch, but I'm sure they had some horrible atrocity they committed 600 years ago just like everyone else. Epirus just gets offended by anything that implies Serbia is succeeding; they wish they still had the Serbs at their feet like they did in 1822 (regardless of the fact that the Hungarians did the heavy lifting in that war).

I've certainly never seen one - there's just something about being on the border of East and West, North and South, that makes every little grievance a casus belli. Herceg have been fairly low on the atrocity count, actually - but in fairness, that was mostly due to being overrun by every other state in turn, whilst their capture of Dubrovnik in 1774 was reportedly quite a brutal affair. Epirus, meanwhile, are pretty much driven foreign-policy-wise by anti-Serbianism, and as you say do seem to have a certain blindness about their relative importance in the Conflagration of the 1820s - they did take Kraljevo and Prijepolje, but that was about it as far as their contribution went.

Rhomania...I mean, their Greco-Roman cultural heritage is impressive, but they're so focused on the past they can't cope with present problems. Their vaunted Senate can't even handle a few thousand Turkish nomads with app tabs***.

Rhomania are pretty much living in a strange cross between an idealistic dreamworld and a brutal police state, seemingly with none of their politicians noticing this odd dichotomy. Any attempts by their army to restore order in the Turkish provinces just creates more problems than it solves, and they're not very good at stopping international support for the rebels either. Some commentators have identified them as a potential spot for Nahist revolution, too - they are getting a bit autocratic.

It's a shame about the populism in Wallachia; those movements always support the most passionate but least intelligent people from what I've seen. I would've thought considering the excellent peace they won they would've ignored 1820 more--but if they're still mad about that it logically follows they'd be furious about the loss of Drobeta. And they put up signs supporting the Brute of Buda? Really?? His destruction of Beograd was horrific by all accounts, and his campaign of attrition was only outmatched by Carlos the Terrible in that era.

I don't think they're annoyed about the peace of 1820, although they did see their gains in the Dobruja as a God-given right - I think it's more a problem with what happened after it, and in particular how the Hungarians and Serbs both conspired to deny them Temesvar at the Congress of Sarajevo. The Battle of Pleven is a bit of a sore point, too. And yes - these protestors seem to suffer from a certain blindness about exactly what kind of man Lajos was, just because it was Serbs and Bosnians that he was putting to the sword. They actually celebrate the fact that his campaigns in the Vojvodina and in Slavonia bled Serbia dry of manpower bit by bit, and crippled those areas so much that they're still recovering today, economically speaking.

The contrast between the backwards Haemics and progressive North even extends to their worldviews, apparently--nations like Poland and Britain look forward to technological innovation while all these countries fight 200-year-old wars!

With Hungary halfway between, torn between joining the North European Concert and having yet another go at trying to take over the whole of Transylvania/Erdely...
 
Very true - the example of France in the 1800s is perhaps the clearest indication of this. There's a very fine line states have to tread between decentralisation and bureaucracy - the 'Golden Mean' - and when a state deviates from this, as happened in 1827, everything slides into anarchy. In a way, states are self-regulating: too much decentralisation creates a niche for a strong leader, but a decadent and overcentralised state causes uprisings and eventually a restoration of what Nahi called 'the bare bones of the state' under new leadership.

France tried to overcompensate for its decentralization with bureaucracy too quickly and paid the price. Have you ever seen the Saint-Croix paintings of the French court just before the Civil War? The ostentatious displays, the dozens of minor counts and lords jockeying for dominance, the sickly King Henri XI on his glamorous throne--the artist really shows the hidden chaos that surged to the surface when Henri died. The textbook example of why Nahi's "small steps" are so important, since the rapid political changes were what really doomed the monarchy.

IMO every successful nation today had a long barebones period to enforce a culture of austere government. Britain with the Gloucester Regency for instance--if the Duke hadn't eliminated so much of the bureaucracy in an attempt centralize power under himself the Council* wouldn't have eventually been able to recreate that bureaucracy (in a reduced manner) as elected positions, which started the shift to democracy there.

I've certainly never seen one - there's just something about being on the border of East and West, North and South, that makes every little grievance a casus belli. Herceg have been fairly low on the atrocity count, actually - but in fairness, that was mostly due to being overrun by every other state in turn, whilst their capture of Dubrovnik in 1774 was reportedly quite a brutal affair. Epirus, meanwhile, are pretty much driven foreign-policy-wise by anti-Serbianism, and as you say do seem to have a certain blindness about their relative importance in the Conflagration of the 1820s - they did take Kraljevo and Prijepolje, but that was about it as far as their contribution went.

Oh, yeah, they slaughtered the Venetians of the city, right? That backfired on them pretty quickly, though...

Epirus' sense of inflated self-importance almost makes them the Morocco of the Haemics. Now if only they had a Sardinia to whine about every other week, it'd be the perfect comparison! ;)


Rhomania are pretty much living in a strange cross between an idealistic dreamworld and a brutal police state, seemingly with none of their politicians noticing this odd dichotomy. Any attempts by their army to restore order in the Turkish provinces just creates more problems than it solves, and they're not very good at stopping international support for the rebels either. Some commentators have identified them as a potential spot for Nahist revolution, too - they are getting a bit autocratic.

One week they're rebuilding the Colossus of Rhodes, the next they're imprisoning protestors in Salonike. What a mess. Unfortunately, I don't see any revolution there making much headway--the opposition's split between Rhoman radicals, Turkish moderates, and reactionary descendants of the Armenian magnates, and they're too busy fighting among themselves to present a unified front. They need political change, though--you're right in that their autocracy will only get worse if nothing happens.


I don't think they're annoyed about the peace of 1820, although they did see their gains in the Dobruja as a God-given right - I think it's more a problem with what happened after it, and in particular how the Hungarians and Serbs both conspired to deny them Temesvar at the Congress of Sarajevo. The Battle of Pleven is a bit of a sore point, too. And yes - these protestors seem to suffer from a certain blindness about exactly what kind of man Lajos was, just because it was Serbs and Bosnians that he was putting to the sword. They actually celebrate the fact that his campaigns in the Vojvodina and in Slavonia bled Serbia dry of manpower bit by bit, and crippled those areas so much that they're still recovering today, economically speaking.

The Wallachians' aspirations to create "Great Romania" (what a provocative name!) under Alexandru II alienated their former allies to the degree that even defeated Bulgaria worked to hinder them at the Congress, right? Temesvar probably rightfully belonged to Romania; at least Hungary's given more rights to its minorities in recent years.


With Hungary halfway between, torn between joining the North European Concert and having yet another go at trying to take over the whole of Transylvania/Erdely...

The monarchists versus the Concertists...of course the former can point at the echoes of the Religious Alliance in the NEC and spin hyperbole about Rejectionist domination, but the latter has apparently made headway complaining about the sovereign rights of the people of Transylvania who may not want to belong to Hungary. Besides, don't you think they would have learned by now after two failed invasions? :winkytongue:
 
France tried to overcompensate for its decentralization with bureaucracy too quickly and paid the price. Have you ever seen the Saint-Croix paintings of the French court just before the Civil War? The ostentatious displays, the dozens of minor counts and lords jockeying for dominance, the sickly King Henri XI on his glamorous throne--the artist really shows the hidden chaos that surged to the surface when Henri died. The textbook example of why Nahi's "small steps" are so important, since the rapid political changes were what really doomed the monarchy.

Those paintings are an absolute masterpiece - they really show the fragility of the French state, concealed beneath a veneer of self-confidence. In many ways, the French monarchy was caught in an impossible position - they couldn't reform or take 'small steps', because that would have risked admitting weakness and encouraging power struggles at court, but they definitely couldn't go on the way they were. In the end, they tried to do both - Francois III was deposed by his own uncle after he tried to cut royal expenditure and triggered a crisis of confidence in the government, and then that uncle (Léopold IV) was overthrown by popular revolution when he tried to force a return to the lavish days of the last three Henris. As Nahi says in The Life and Death of the State, they had been doomed since the late 1600s at the latest.

IMO every successful nation today had a long barebones period to enforce a culture of austere government. Britain with the Gloucester Regency for instance--if the Duke hadn't eliminated so much of the bureaucracy in an attempt centralize power under himself the Council* wouldn't have eventually been able to recreate that bureaucracy (in a reduced manner) as elected positions, which started the shift to democracy there.

I certainly can't think of any counter-examples - the Linburg dynasty in Hesse and later Westphalia were textbook examples as well, with their 'separation of state and government', whilst Poland had the steady evolution of the Sejm. Not for nothing is Gloucester called the 'father of Westminster' - although the Council made a lot of innovative steps themselves, being (if I recall correctly) the inventors of the doctrine of popular responsibility in 1808, when Kingston was the High Administrator.

Oh, yeah, they slaughtered the Venetians of the city, right? That backfired on them pretty quickly, though...

Epirus' sense of inflated self-importance almost makes them the Morocco of the Haemics. Now if only they had a Sardinia to whine about every other week, it'd be the perfect comparison! ;)

I think Herceg learnt their lesson pretty quickly - something about being turned into an economically dependant quasi-vassal will do that to you, apparently. You're completely right - Epirus are literally just Morocco with rainfall and oligarchy. I guess you could sort of say that Kosovo and the Vardar Valley are their Sardinia, but with the major difference that people actually sometimes listen to Morocco about Sardinia...

One week they're rebuilding the Colossus of Rhodes, the next they're imprisoning protestors in Salonike. What a mess. Unfortunately, I don't see any revolution there making much headway--the opposition's split between Rhoman radicals, Turkish moderates, and reactionary descendants of the Armenian magnates, and they're too busy fighting among themselves to present a unified front. They need political change, though--you're right in that their autocracy will only get worse if nothing happens.

If there's no major popular revolution (which is seeming more difficult by the day, what with their internal squabbles), I wouldn't be at all surprised if the ethnic groups on the frontiers - the Armenians in Trebizon, the Turks in central Anatolia, and the Kurds on the south coast and in Cyprus - just try to secede at some point, if they can find a foreign sponsor to help them out (and Rhomania's got no shortage of rivals...). The only hope for a united Rhomania is reforming quickly - maybe going federal, or at the very least repealing the oppressive policies of the Nafplion Administration.

The Wallachians' aspirations to create "Great Romania" (what a provocative name!) under Alexandru II alienated their former allies to the degree that even defeated Bulgaria worked to hinder them at the Congress, right? Temesvar probably rightfully belonged to Romania; at least Hungary's given more rights to its minorities in recent years.

Yep - Alexandru and his ministers behaved as if they'd single-handedly defeated the Serb Alliance, instead of mostly just hiding behind the Danube and eventually attacking Vidin when nobody was watching. Heaven knows what they were thinking with the name as well - apparently, Alexandru's chief minister Lupei had some bizarre scheme to ally with the Thessalian faction in Rhomania at the time, and eventually to unite Wallachia with the Greek territories and rule Anatolia and Bulgaria as protectorates. By the stage that they'd worked any of this out, though, the Nafplion forces were firmly in control. Meanwhile, it simply wasn't in Hungary's interest to have a major Wallachian fortress north of the Erdelian Alps either - although we saw how well that all worked out in 1853...

The monarchists versus the Concertists...of course the former can point at the echoes of the Religious Alliance in the NEC and spin hyperbole about Rejectionist domination, but the latter has apparently made headway complaining about the sovereign rights of the people of Transylvania who may not want to belong to Hungary. Besides, don't you think they would have learned by now after two failed invasions? :winkytongue:

The Hungarian two-party system is truly wearisome - but at least it's showing signs of breaking down, with the emergence of a breakaway faction in the monarchists favouring complete isolationism and abandoning every claim to Transylvania. And you'd think they'd have learnt, but in fairness this is the same nation that kept styling its ruler the Serene Prince of Istria for a further three centuries after Istria fell to the Carniolans, so there's certainly a long history of national stubbornness. The Szekelers keep stirring up trouble there too, so it's no wonder that the Hungarians keep thinking that they've got a fighting chance of making it to Targu-Mures this time...
 
Top